Historical trends in federal education policies that target students placed at risk

Schooling Students Placed at Risk: Research, Policy, and Practice in the Education of Poor and Minority Adolescents

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 17-35

  Mitchell, Antoinette ^a  

^a URBAN INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23844499884     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781410605597-8     Document Type: Chapter

References (29)

1. Archibald, D. (1998). The reviews of state content standards in English language arts and mathematics: A summary and review of their methods and findings and implications for future standards development, (Report No. ED-98-PO-2038). Paper commissioned by the National Education Goals Panel.
2. Baird, A. (1996). Equal educational opportunity: Project series No. 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
3. Borman, G., & D’Agostino, J. (1996). Title I and student achievement: A metaanalysis of federal evaluation results. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(4), 309-326.
4. Congressional Budget Office (1993). The federal role in improving elementary and secondary education. Washington, DC: Author.
5. Congressional Research Service (1992). Redefining the federal role in elementary and secondary education: Reauthorization of the ESEA (Update CRS Issue Brief). Washington, DC: Author.
6. Cookson, P. (1995). Goals 2000: Framework for the new educational federalism. Teachers College Record, 96(3), 405-417.
7. Elmore, R., & Fuhrman, S. (1995), Opportunity-to-learn standards and the state role in education. Teachers College Record, 96(3), 432-457.
8. Gibboney, R. (1994). The stone trumpet: A story of practical school reform, 1960-1990. New York: State University of New York Press.
9. Hacker, A. (1992). Two nations: Black and white, separate, hostile and unequal. New York: Ballantine.
10. Heid, C. (1991). The dilemma of Chapter I program improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(4), 394-398.
11. Jennings, J. (1991). Chapter I: A view from Congress. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(4), 335-338.
12. Kaestle, C, & Smith, M. (1982). Federal role in elementary and secondary education, 1940-1980. Harvard Educational Review, 52(4); 384-408.
13. Kantor, H. (1991). Education, social reform and the state: ESEA and federal education policy in the 1960‘s. American Journal of Education, 100 (1), 47-83.
14. Kantor, H., & Lowe, R. (1995). Class, race and the emergence of federal education policy: From the New Deal to the Great Society. Educational Researcher, 24(3), 4-11,21.
15. Kennedy, M., Birman, B., & Demaline, R. (1986). The effectiveness of Chapter 1 services. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, United States
16. Department of Education. King, E. (1994). Goals 2000: Educate America Act. School Law Bulletin, 25(4), 15-27.
17. Lewis, A. (1995). An overview of the standards movement. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(10);744-750.
18. Lewis, O. (1969). The culture of poverty. In D. P. Moynihan (Ed.), On understanding poverty: Prospectives from the social sciences (pp. 187-200). New York: Basic Books.
19. Martin, R., & McClure, P. (1969). Title I of ESEA: Is it helping poor children? Washington, DC: Washington Research Project and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
20. Peterson, P., Rabe, B., & Wong, K. (1988). The Evolution of the Compensatory Education Program. In D. Doyle & B. Cooper (Eds.), Federal aid to the disadvantaged: What future for Chapter I? (pp. 33-60) Philadelphia: Falmer.
21. Riley, R. (1994). Redefining the federal role in education: Toward a framework for higher standards, improved schools, broader opportunities and new responsibilities for all. Journal of Law and Education, 23(3), 295- 361.
22. Sizer, T. (1995, April 2). Making the grade, ashington Post Education Review, p. 12.
23. Smith, M., & Scoll, B. (1995). The Clintor uman capital agenda. Teachers College Record, 96(3), 389-404.
24. Spring, J, (1976). The sorting machiw National educational policy since 1945. New York: Longman.
25. Stevenson, D. (1995). Goals 2000 and local reform. Teachers College Record, 96(3), 458-466.
26. Traiman, S. (1993). The debate on opportunity-todearn standards. Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association.
27. U.S. Department of Education. (1992). National assessment of the Chapter I program: The interim report. Washington, DC: Author.
28. Verstegen, D. (1990), Education fiscal policy in the Reagan administration. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(4),355-373.
29. Wargo, M., Tallmadge, G., Michaels, D�? Lipe, D., & Morris, S. (1972). ESEA Title I: A reanalysis and synthesis of evaluation data from fiscal year 1965 through 1970. Palo Alto, CA: American Institute of Research.